Mises was an ardent critic of conscription and foreign interventionalism. There was only one statement I ever read where he implied that under an extremity would conscription be considered a thought.

While Rothbard is accredited as a pillar of modern day libertarianism, in it's form of classical liberalism, I find Mises' line of thought to be more in line with the origin of the term in comparison to Rothbard. He leans more anarcho-capitalist ( which I tend to as well)

I do believe that what is defined as libertarian socialism would still be at odds with libertarian principal because at some point there would have to be theft or force in order to implement the society. You would have to take away the right of the individual and transfer that power to the collective of workers to posses the means of production. That would also limit the ability of the individual to determine what they wanted to accumulate in life as they would be limited to an equal share and not able to implement ideas  (without a group majority) but instead forced into an idealogical oppression that creates a cieling for the individual.

You might want to look up the term ignorance. My thoughts are that you've never bothered to read Mises' analysis of Socialism or else you would have been able to construct an actual argument instead of wasting my time with a nonsensical rant where you try to affirm your own assertions of " he did not refute it" by backing it up with a factless opinion.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you've actually read the several hundred pages of his analysis and will be able to respond intelligently to my response. Although if you did, you wouldn't have mentioned that idealogical Kindergarten pamphlet written by Marc and attempt to make a comparison with the two schools of thought.

I'll make it easy for you. Which one, if not all points Mises' makes when referring to Pseudo socialist systems do you believe he did not refute? How about the chapter on socialism and ethics. How were his assertions incorrect?

I heavily leaned socialist in my late teens early 20s until I became educated. Educate yourself with both sides of the spectrum before making uniformed statements as the one you provided.

Larger anarchist societies (maybe not communist ones, but still) exist in multiple places right now, such as Chiapas and Rojava and socialist ones have certainly existed before in Spain and Ukraine and other places. Just to point that out.

You didn't read the link did you? 

Here is what Mises says on conscription, he is pretty clear in his support for it: 

"He who wants to remain free, must fight unto death those who are intent upon depriving him of his freedom. As isolated attempts on the part of each individual to resist are doomed to failure, the only workable way is to organize resistance by the government. The essential task of government is defense of the social system not only against domestic gangsters but also against external foes. He who in our age opposes armaments and conscription is, perhaps unbeknown to himself, an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all. Human Action  3rd Edition (Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1966, p. 282)"

Libertarianism as a political philosophy has always been about self-ownership/individual autonomy. This when taken to its radical ends, implies anarchism. Mises denies full self-ownership, even though he pushes for individual rights (from a different basis) and therefore does not qualify as a libertarian, but simply a liberal. 

"I do believe that what is defined as libertarian socialism would still be at odds with libertarian principal because at some point there would have to be theft or force in order to implement the society. You would have to take away the right of the individual and transfer that power to the collective of workers to posses the means of production"

Can you expand on your reasoning here? For example, why do you think people can't pool their resources together and start firms collectively? The only thing that prevents it in our current society is that the state heavily subsidizes a small subset of people in business, hindering competitive markets from actually working. In other words, the state creates monopolies. Most anarcho-capitalists would agree with this claim. So without monopolies over unhomesteaded resources it seems possible that people would abstain from working for others, because they already have their own access to the means of production. Then it is simply a matter of cooperating with other persons and creating firms that are managed democratically. Most libertarian socialists fully embrace libertarian means of achieving their ideal social structures, as they've seen the nasty effects of violent revolution. 

"That would also limit the ability of the individual to determine what they wanted to accumulate in life as they would be limited to an equal share and not able to implement ideas  (without a group majority) but instead forced into an idealogical oppression that creates a cieling for the individual."

Only those individuals who choose to work in cooperatives. Self-ownership is definitely a thing. Remember, libertarian socialists aren't only anarcho-collectivists. Many were individualist anarchists (Benjamin Tucker in particular) and the reason why they opposed wage labor was because the individuals did not have control over the means of production. They idealized a society where all individuals had control of the means of production, regardless of whether it was in collection with others, or independent of that. 

Libertarian-Socialism seems to be the smaller brother of anarchy-communism, which is the step-child of Sonichu.

Yes, I’ve read the quote before. There is quite the ongoing debate as to whether Mises was really in support of conscription. I’ve seen compelling arguments on both sides, but after reviewing all facts, I’ve come to a personal conclusion, based on the evidence provided, that he was not a true supporter of conscription.  What always seems to be left out when this debate occurs is sources from several backing statements where Mises critiques a governments role in conscription. In your own quote ” As isolated attempts on the part of each individual to resist are doomed to failure, the only workable way is to organize resistance by the government” Mises is insinuating that this means is a last resort. Not supporting a draft in terms of Vietnam but only when every last option of the individual is exhausted and their rights and freedoms will be imposed upon. In Nation State and Economy, Mises refers to conscription as a “blood tax”

This quote paints a different picture than the one you provided.

“Compulsory military service thus leads to compulsory labor service of all citizens who are able to work, male and female. The supreme commander exercises power over the entire nation, he replaces the work of the able-bodied by the work of the less fit draftees, and places as many able-bodied at the front as he can spare at home without endangering the supplies of the army. The supreme commander then decides what is to be produced and how. He also decides how the products are to be used. Mobilization has become total; the nation and the state have been transformed into an army; war socialism has replaced the market economy.”

If that is not a critique in it’s absolute form, then I’m not sure what to tell you.

Although I can concede that he is not 100% Libertarian in when it comes to that particular viewpoint.

 “ "the libertarian principle of self–ownership says that each person enjoys, over himself and his powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that he has not contracted to supply.”

You can check off most of the points in this definition to confirm Mises’ alignment with self ownership when reading through his works. I believe his vague remark that contradicts all previous statements would still have him in the category of Libertarian more so than classical Liberfal.

What you are referring to in pooling resources and or expecting people to hand over sole proprietorship to the worker in allowing them not only a fair share of profit but equal say in the individuals company is more of a pipe dream than a realistic expectation. You’d assume that every entrepreneur/owner would be willing to hand over this without coercion or force. Its rather nonsensical and unrealistic. The majority of individuals who have built their business from the ground up an sacrificed time with family in order to provide financially would never go along with the idea.

I’ll answer your question with a question. Have you ever been involved in business or owned a company that was successful (in terms of millions in profit)?. However, a majority of small business owners who went from a joint venture to sole proprietorship and were successful can admit that cooperation is difficult and holds back the individual from achieving and implementing all of their own creative ideas. That’s why a numerous amount end up dissolving, especially on the small business scale.

While it would work for an individual proprietorship where the business would only require a single owner such as a small business computer repair shop, multilevel marketing or some small service that can be provided to the public, those who already own a business or who had ideas to create a product on a mass scale would then be forced under the society to share ownership. I personally would not want a society in that manner because the reality is some people are of higher intelligence than others.

These are the reasons why I believe that Libertarian and Socialism are not compatible to the full extent that you described, although I can acknowledge that some Socialists can, to a certain level have some Libertarian leaning ideology. Although I disagree with you, thank you for the intelligent debate and sorry for taking so long to responds. As a tradesman, I’m up early and work late so I’m not the best at responding in an immediate timeframe.

Libertarian socialism is a broader term than anarcho-communism. Anarcho-communism is one version of libertarian socialism, but there are others too.

Even if one supports conscription for extreme cases, which is an arbitrary exception, Mises knows very well that what is considered "extreme" differs from person to person, so it would easily be abusive to add such a proviso. Supporting conscription in the marginal instance denies individuals full self-ownership, but you recognized that with "I can concede that he is not 100% Libertarian in when it comes to that particular viewpoint." 

Mises denied natural rights (and therefore self-ownership) quite frequently. This was mostly because natural rights theory was not very popular amongst academics when Mises was prominent. Utilitarianism was the most common philosophy at the time. Rothbard saw it as a deficit of Mises' philosophy, and wanted to fix it. Mises derived all of his politics from the axiom "people act" rather than the axiom "people own themselves." Most of his arguments were consequentialist in nature because of this. 

"What you are referring to in pooling resources and or expecting people to hand over sole proprietorship to the worker in allowing them not only a fair share of profit but equal say in the individuals company is more of a pipe dream than a realistic expectation. You’d assume that every entrepreneur/owner would be willing to hand over this without coercion or force. Its rather nonsensical and unrealistic. The majority of individuals who have built their business from the ground up an sacrificed time with family in order to provide financially would never go along with the idea."

 I am not talking about the appropriation of any extant institutions that don't greatly benefit from state-privilege, but Rothbard and Mises did say the following: 

https://mises.org/library/rothbards-left-and-right-forty-years-later

"Indeed, he would later argue that any nominally private institution that gets more than 50% of its revenue from the government, or is heavily complicit in government crimes, or both, should be considered a government entity; since government ownership is illegitimate, the proper owners of such institutions are "the 'homesteaders', those who have already been using and therefore 'mixing their labor' with the facilities." This entails inter alia "student and/or faculty ownership of the universities." As for the "myriad of corporations which are integral parts of the military-industrial complex," one solution, Rothbard says, is to "turn over ownership to the homesteading workers in the particular plants."16 He also supported third-world land reforms considered socialistic by many conservatives, on the grounds that existing land tenure represented "continuing aggression by titleholders of land against peasants engaged in transforming the soil."17 And here again Rothbard is following that wild-eyed leftist Ludwig von Mises, who wrote:

Nowhere and at no time has the large-scale ownership of land come into being through the working of economic forces in the market. It is the result of military and political effort. Founded by violence, it has been upheld by violence and by that alone "

I agree with Rothbard that any institutions that benefit greatly from state-privilege should be homesteaded, and I agree with Mises that large scale alienable ownership over land would be very expensive to protect without a state to subsidize that protection. Therefore, monopolies over land would be costly, and more people would have access. Combined, both of these set up an environment where market socialism (particularly mutualism) can compete with capitalism. There is nothing wrong with that. I am for markets more than I am for employer-employee wage relationships, and if the latter lose out the prior, so be it. At the same time, abolishing capitalism through force, is obviously illibertarian, no worthwhile libertarian-socialist would argue for such actions. 

" Have you ever been involved in business or owned a company that was successful (in terms of millions in profit)?. However, a majority of small business owners who went from a joint venture to sole proprietorship and were successful can admit that cooperation is difficult and holds back the individual from achieving and implementing all of their own creative ideas. That’s why a numerous amount end up dissolving, especially on the small business scale."

I have done contract work as a sole-propriertor, so to an extent. The problem with your argument is that the reason why cooperation is difficult, is because large vertical institutions benefit greatly from economies of scale as well as outright privileges (subisidies, legal monopolies, etc) provided by state. Furthermore, one must consider the economic calculation problem (thank Mises for this one.) The larger the insitution (not just government) the less efficient it is in planning, because the knowledge is not being directly inputed to the person making the decisions in the market. One can argue that large vertical firms only remain healthily profitable because the workers and lower management often ignore central management, because they have more information on the status of the market. 

The mutualist Kevin Carson makes a good argument about this. 

https://c4ss.org/content/14497

"This calculation argument can be applied not only to a state-planned economy, but also to the internal planning of the large corporation under interventionism, or state capitalism. (By state capitalism, I refer to the means by which, as Murray Rothbard said, “our corporate state uses the coercive taxing power either to accumulate corporate capital or to lower corporate costs,” in addition to cartelizing markets through regulations, enforcing artificial property rights like “intellectual property,” and otherwise protecting privilege against competition.)"

So it is errenous to believe that a free-market would have the same winners and losers as our current one. Without the state, markets would manifest differently in certain ways and similarly in others.  Small businesses, and cooperatives would definitely have a much better time if 1. diseconomies of scale took over, and 2. the state did not provide large companies with subsidies, anti-competitive legislation, and legal protections against torts (limited liability.) There is already cooperation within any firm, but it is very hierarchial. Small businesses tend to be less hierarchial and more horizontal, and that is all that socialists want. 

"While it would work for an individual proprietorship where the business would only require a single owner such as a small business computer repair shop, multilevel marketing or some small service that can be provided to the public, those who already own a business or who had ideas to create a product on a mass scale would then be forced under the society to share ownership. I personally would not want a society in that manner because the reality is some people are of higher intelligence than others."

If we assume that this (forced) transition from companies to cooperative somehow works, how does this make things better for the employees? You would still have many cooperatives competing in the market for customers who would pick the lowest price (or best price/performance) including low-cost alternatives from overseas. How would a salesperson or a security guy make more income in a cooperative if the customers don't want to pay more for his services?

Because he would own the company like owning stocks, and thereofre earn on the profits, instead not owning anything at all in capitalism. I didnt advocate it just tell how they view it.